|
My page on Mike Esplin has been put up for speedy deletion a number of times and I am confused as to why this has happened. I think he is a very notable person that has worked on a number of large cases such as the Gary Gilmore case and the Lafferty Brothers, both well known cases in the state of Utah that many students even study at school. I have ready and implemented the rules found on the biographies of living peoples page but still get notifications of speedy deletion for this page. Why is this the case?--Es999 (talk) 9:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, Es999. I do see that the history of the article shows there have been continual problems with creating a page on this individual because of violations of Wikipedia. Violations have included conflict of interest, advertising, lack of references, biographies of living persons, among others. And this appears to be your third registered account with the apparent sole purpose of adding this individual's name to Wikipedia. If there is no significant coverage of this individual in reliable independent sources (i.e. coverage of Esplin himself -- not coverage of the cases he is involved with), than an article on Wikipedia about them is not possible. You have left a draft of the article at Draft:Michael Esplin -- but you have never responded to the editors who reviewed it and who commented there. I would suggest that you begin to discuss it with them. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ... I am considering creating a page for a subject Nate Weiss, who has now played in an appropriately high soccer league. Before you had deleted it as that was not the case. Would it be possible to send me the article that was deleted because at that time he had not played at a sufficiently high level? I'm not sure I ever saw it, but it might prove a helpful start. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, Epeefleche -- if you can demonstrate that he now meets notability requirements, then go for it. I have userfied the page for you at User talk:Epeefleche/Nate Weiss (with the entire history back to 2008). Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, it is total nonsense to say that any species that was "under total extinction in the 14th century" now breeds; it is total nonsense to say that whales nestle on the islands; it is total nonsense to say that Cape Verde would be visited "during a seasonal migration between Iceland and Norway." Poor translation can result in total nonsense. Kevin McE (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Kevin McE, it was clear from your edit summary that you thought it was all “total nonsense.” However, if you had clicked the link to the provided source, you would have discovered that the entry was only poorly written English. (Not unusual for the large number of Wikipedia editors for whom English is not their first language – probably including User:Nvvchar who added the text.) In these instances, it is better to assume the editor’s good intent and follow Wikipedia core policy on editing: Do not remove information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage. It could be a long time since you have reviewed the core policy, so I remind you that this concept can be found at WP:PERFECTION and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Can you please permanently undo the damage done by the banned user here per WP:OUTING? Also, please see his other disruptive edits here directed towards me. Thank you. --BiH (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly, BIH. I now have redacted and rev/deleted those entries by Lucas McEntree which revealed any non-public identifying information. Please let me know if you need any further assistance. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, but it seems here is still nonsense mentioning of the name associated with me here and here. Thank you for your support. --BiH (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
The noteable photographs who has their pages in wikipedia mostly are inside the 4 points of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Creative_professionals. The Page in question does not get into those 4 points as my understanding. Do you think that I am wrong in understanding that rule and it will not be in {{Db-person}} ? It will be really helpful in understanding that as we can either delete few pages which does not contain details about any significant people or we can add many more people who will be part of those 4 points.
Babaidas (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Babaidas[reply]
- Hi Babaidas. You are probably misunderstanding that Wikipedia has a number of processes for deleting articles: WP:CSD, WP:PROD and WP:AFD. The criteria for each is different, with speedy deletion having the lowest standard for keeping an article than the other two. We use CSD to delete only the most obviously non-encyclopedia articles. If you read WP:A7, you will see that it is not required that an article absolutely meets any notability standards -- it is only necessary that the article makes some credible assertion that it might have significance. It still may not meet the more stringent criteria of notability, etc. -- and be eventually deleted -- but that is something which is decided by prodding or deletion discussion. An article that is not deleted by CSD does not mean that it is automatically suitable for Wikipedia. It is that difference which you have misunderstood. For example, in the case of PeeVee, he does not meet the criteria for WP:A7 because the article does make some credible assertions of significance (founder of websites or organizations, etc.). However, I agree that there is some doubt that PeeVee passes the higher standards of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. That is why when I declined your speedy deletion tag, I added the comment that it can be tagged for Prod or AFD. In that way, there can be a consensus discussion on whether or not the article passes the more subjective standards. I hope this explanation helps. If you have further questions, please ask. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CactusWriter
I am a new user. I work for a charity called the Kokoda Track Foundation (KTF). We’re in Australia. We do most of our work in Papua New Guinea.
Yesterday the KTF’s Wikipedia page was deleted by you due to copyright infringement (G12). We were a bit surprised in our office! None of us are familiar with Wikipedia and its rules. We assumed we were entitled to a page. Our original page was created by a volunteer back in 2011 and contained old/inaccurate information and also spelling mistakes. This week we asked a work experience student to correct this. I think that update must have generated some interest, because the next day yourself and Lixxx235 recommended it to be deleted!
I am new to Wikipedia and it is very easy to commit a faux pas… I hope to avoid it but let me know if I am! I may have already done this by having a volunteer intern edit the article. I don’t take the deletion personally and would like to work together with you to determine if our organisation is actually entitled to a Wikipedia page. Could our page be improved? Turned into a stub? Merged with another article (e.g. Kokoda Track)? I’d prefer this than outright deletion. I really do believe the organisation is notable, and not because we work on a good cause, but because we are a big deal along the Kokoda Track. Although I accept have a strong conflict of interest!
Due to the conflict of interest I have – how to you recommend I proceed? Is there a place in Wikipedia that I can list secondary sources and have an independent Wikipedia editor write an article? Or add it as a part of the Kokoda Track article or a stub?
I hope we can work together to make Wikipedia a better place! Thanks for your time and effort in making that so already.
Cheers,
Bluhdorn, 12:45pm 29th May 14
- Hi Bluhdorn. I see that the online website for The Kokoda Track Foundation now lists all text as licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0. Therefore I have restored The Kokoda Track Foundation article -- originally deleted as a copyright violation. Any further issues about its content should be addressed at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kokoda Track Foundation which has also been reopened. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi CactusWriter, Thanks for this. We'll figure out how to update this correctly now, w/o the conflict of interest, cheers!--Bluhdorn (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--Prakash762 (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC) hello cactus....recently you deleted my page named Bikash Karn...will you please restore that page so that i can make the changes as you suggested.Actually i was totally disconnected with the internet for last week so that i couldn't go through your warning.hoping you will understand my problem.THANKS[reply]
- Hi Prakash762. The article Bikash Karn (and the two other articles created on the same subject) were deleted because each was a copyright violation - the text was copypasted from an "all rights reserved" online source. Administrators cannot restore articles deleted for copyright violation -- because that would be a violation in itself. Therefore, the article should be written from scratch (in your own words) using independent reliable sources (Please note that Facebook and official websites do not qualify as independent relible source.) Please note that the article was also tagged and deleted for unambiguous promotion. All articles on Wikipedia must be written in a neutral point-of-view. I also suggest that you review the Wikipedia policy on Conflict of Interest before proceeding. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
restore the page bikash karn
--Prakash762 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC) dear cactus i understood what you try to make me understand so please give me a chance so that i could edit the page as per Wikipedia rule....[reply]
- Prakash762, as I've already stated, copyright violations cannot be restored. You are welcome to create a new article about the subject - using your own words. (Of course, the article will still need to conform with the other Wikipedia policies for point-of-view, referencing, etc.) It is a good idea to use the WP:Article Wizard in order to avoid these problems. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
some might find it offensive 135.0.153.146 (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Z[reply]
- Hello. I'm sorry but that deletion had nothing to due with the actual nature of the category. It was simply a procedural matter. The Category:LGBT characters in animation was one of several dozen categories about fictional characters that were deleted because these were created by an editor who has previously been blocked and banned from creating any new categories. You may review the discussion at this link. Cheers — CactusWriter (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Check Zindagi (TV channel). OccultZone (Talk) 06:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello — I noticed you recently deleted Category:Drones in fiction because it was the work of a Wikipedia Arch-Villain. (I believe a contributor to the discussion said something like “delete them all and let the regular edit process sort them out”.) I think that might be a legitimate, useful category, especially since today not all drones are fictional. Any objection to my recreating that category, with the existing member pages? Unician ∇ 09:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Unician. I have no opinion on the validity of the category. But I am aware that there have been previous discussions about these cats. You have read the discussion here, so I suggest you ask the participants of that discussion whether a particular category is well-defined. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you know more about Tanzanian soccer, so thanks for "de-hoaxing" that. However, there are two hoaxes on the talk page with substantial age that I want you to restore. They are Howard's Law and Gold Tea. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Alexschmidt711. I know practically nothing about soccer, let alone Tanzanian soccer. However, it took very little investigation to reveal that there is some validity to those edits. They revolve around a misunderstanding of the English words "national" and "mainland" -- which is an error, but it is obviously not an attempt to create a hoax (as is the case with the vast majority of disputed edits here on Wikipedia -- especially among non-native English speakers.) It is best to AGF most edits -- including those that are in error. More often than not, errors are the result of simple misunderstandings. We need to be circumspect about declaring articles and edits as hoaxes and adding them to the hoax list. The list is purposed for the serious study of previous hoaxes, and we should be careful not to turn it into a game of detection which, in turn, encourages more hoax creation. I am not in favor of adding every minor bit of vandalism or obscure made-up article to the list (of which dozens are created every week) -- but rather only those which truly reflect serious hoaxing and have created an impact outside Wikipedia.
- As for the two articles that you mention above, they do appear to be hoaxes as stated at the AFDs. I have recreated the one at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Gold Tea. For the other, the closing admin mentioned that you can contact them for recreation. If you have further questions, please let me know. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the new sources would suffice. Sorry for the error. I will keep trying and perhaps one day it will become noatable enough to have a article. TY Armorbearer777 (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there used to be an articled for Bill Thompson (television host), but that you deleted it as part of "Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: remove double redirect for needed article)" way back in 13 February 2012. Can you give me a bit more info on that? Was there just a redirect that was deleted and not an actual article? Thompson was a notable TV personality in Phoenix, AZ. He passed away yesterday. On the Bill Thompson disambiguation page there's a broken link to the missing Bill Thompson (television host) article. If an article is needed, I am willing to write one. Thanks. --Jeremy Butler (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Jeremy Butler. Please do create an article about Bill Thompson. It was a only a WP:double redirect that was deleted. And, as far as I know, there has never been a valid Wikipedia article written about Thompson. But there absolutely should be! Thompson was an iconic figure in television history. I have have been terribly remiss for not at least making a small stub about him. (I grew up watching Wallace and Ladmo in the 1960s. And was present when he was inducted into the Arizona Historical Society's initial group of history makers along with Sandra Day O'Connor, Barry Goldwater, etc.) Let me know when you create the article and I'll be happy to help with it. Thanks. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Very cool. I didn't realize you had an Arizona connection. I grew up there in the '60s, too; leaving for college in 1972. So, you can imagine why I have a soft spot for Wallace & Ladmo! My dad was a lawyer there and pals with Justice O'Connor. Anyway. I'll get on the Bill Thompson article this weekend and let you know when it's up. Thanks. --Jeremy Butler 20:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bill Thompson (television host) is back! Feel free to edit/enhance it. --Jeremy Butler 13:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Nicely done. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, CactusWriter can you mention why the article has been deleted and what are the possible ammendments.
Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacinthJoshva (talk • contribs) 04:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, JacinthJoshva. The article Om narla was deleted for multiple reasons: 1) The language and style of the text was overly promotional rather than in the required neutral point-of-view for an encyclopedia (see WP:POV). 2) There was no credible assertion of significance presented. Please note that being a business owner or having published a paper are not significant assertions in itself -- but rather it is the what other independent reliable sources write about that individual which create an individual's significance. (see WP:NOTE) 3) Most importantly, all statements about living persons must be properly referenced to independent reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, journals, etc.). It is not enough for the text to simply be true -- readers must be able to verify the facts. (see WP:BLP) My suggestion to all new contributors is that they use the Wikipedia article wizard, which will help them to avoid these common problems when creating a new page. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, not sure if you remember this, but if you could remove the edits from viewing, which were performed on 24 October 2010, on my userpage, I'd be thrilled. It was back when I was known as Parasect/Cucumberkvp and I have since changed my username. I'd rather have someone who knew what was going on than asking someone else to do this. Thanks! --GouramiWatcher(?) 02:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
[reply]
- Sure, Gourami Watcher. That's not a problem. I have now rev/deleted the edits and edit summaries for that date so they no longer can be seen by editors. Of course, all administrators have the ability to look at rev/del edits. If you want to have the edits completely removed from administrator viewing as well, then they can be oversighted. There are only a handful of Oversighters on Wikipedia and they operate in strict privacy. To request an oversight, use the form at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight and explain that the edits reveal some personal information which you would like removed. I don't envision there being any problem for an oversighter to address it. Cheers — CactusWriter (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that removing its visibility from regular users is probably fine, as if the admins ever need to (which I don't think there would ever be any need), they should be able to view the edits. Thank you! --GouramiWatcher(?) 01:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping I could get you to reverse your decision to decline the speedy deletion nomination of this article as it appears to be based on a factual error, namely fact that he now plays in the Bosnian Premier League. While this is of course true, Mr Duljević had already been playing in the Premier League for three years when the article was deleted by afd in March of last year, so its nothing new. See his profile on soccerway.com for confirmation if necessary. Thank you in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Sir Sputnik. The original article for the 2013 AFD discussion made no mention of FK Sarajevo. And one of the two !voters in the discussion stated they would have no problem with recreation if the person played in a fully pro league. Therefore the article was substantially different. Now... I am unsure why Sarajevo is not considered a fully professional premiere league team -- the WP article certainly suggests that it is -- but I've just checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues and found that project members believe that Bosnia does not qualify. Therefore, I will reverse my decline and allow another admin to address the CSD tag. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear administrator!
User:INeverCry act like a meta puppet of Banned user Iaaasi on Wikimedia Commons, and she deleted many old Hungarian historic photos and paintings from the medieval to pre ww1 era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iaaasi
Banned Iaaasi is a well known chauvinist romanian troll, who is known for his anti-Hungarian sentiment.
Here is the meta puppet's wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:INeverCry
Meta puppets must be deleted.
Bye!--Brelczer (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Brelczer, if you have concerns about procedures at Wikipedia Commons, than you need to discus them at Wikipedia Commons. INeverCry is an administrator there. However, any allegations must be supported by credible evidence. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Yesterday someone created page Drkahin: a short item re a Dr Kahin. As page title was plainly incorrect I moved it to Khandra Kahin, but that page has since been deleted. can you also delete the redirect? cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, IdreamofJeanie. Sure, no problem. Redirect pages for which the target was deleted can be tagged for speedy deletion as G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reginai93 (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Hi! I would like to recreate a deleted page entitled "The Grove by Rockwell". It will have similar content but with credible sources and have a neutral point of view.[reply]
- Hi, Regina93. I see that you are already working on several articles in draft space about projects for this development company. It's great that you will follow Wikipedia policies on Neutral point of view. Please first read the Wikipedia guideline on conflict of interest. At this time, I don't see the articles meeting our criteria -- they appear to be advertisements for the company and I doubt each individual project for the company is notable enough for a stand-alone article. I suggest that you follow the advice given by the editors who have reviewed your drafts. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read Turnbull's book. If she's been paraphrased correctly, her choice of William and Nathaniel Brooks as the first settlers of Laguna Beach seems a bit arbitrary, given that the land had been inhabited for at least 11,500 years prior to their arrival. —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Stepheneng3, there is certainly a point to be made that many lands were peopled prior to the incursion of white settlers or European-style civilizations. And that dates of United States “settlement" are debatable — lying somewhere in the broad chasm between American Exceptionalism and Zinn-like analyses. Fortunately (or unfortunately), we leave that debate to historians — and simply report the evidence or consensus of reliable sources. It seems to me, that most historians place the settlement date for US cities in the modern era, emphasizing the material sense of civilization — i.e. the building of permanent structures as opposed to nomads or tribal villages.
- In the case of Laguna Beach, 1876 is the most common date provided. The earliest mention I’ve read was in Samuel Armor’s 1921 History of Orange County which also stated that Nathaniel Brook’s homestead was the first permanent structure and he was given the title of “Father of Laguna Beach.” He is officially considered the first homesteader. (Aliso Creek was the site of the first permanent homestead in the area in 1871 — but, as you may or may not know, the area around Aliso Creek was not part of the City of Laguna Beach until recently when the city annexed South Laguna in 1987.)
- Arbitrary? Possibly. But I don't think that a date of ~11,700BCE would truly reflect the concept of "settlement". Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your thoughtful and courteous reply. I agree that reliable sources should form the basis of Wikipedia. There's a POV issue here, and I'm not surprised that the available sources lean towards the American Exceptionalism view of the matter. I certainly don't propose to put 11,700 BCE in the infobox; that would be just as misleading as the current situation. Do the sources actually use the verb "settled"? Even if they do, perhaps the best solution would be to follow the sources with respect to the year and replace "Settled" with a more accurate verb such as "Established", "Founded", or "Homesteaded", any of which would suggest permanent structures of the sort which the modern-day inhabitants might feel comfortable in.—Stepheng3 (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken another look at some of the sources again -- and agree with you that the concept of settlement is too vague. Even if the term was somehow defined along the lines of the "first permanent homestead of the modern era, etc...", there would still be some dispute about that among the sources. I think that including a settlement date in the infobox or the history section is unnecessary. We have the founding date of a post office (1887) and the date of city incorporation (1927), and that should be good enough for the infobox. I should not have included it. In the History section, I propose to remove the idea of "official settlement" and, instead, replace it with a sentence about Samuel Armor's statement that Nathaniel Brooks, who purchased his tract of land, subdivided it and built his home there in 1876, was dubbed by Armor as the "Father of Laguna Beach." That way, the information is provided without making any judgement of our own. Sound okay? — CactusWriter (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds fine. Thank you for giving so much thought to the issue. Perhaps the infobox documentation was partly at fault. At one time, it was written in such a way as to suggest that every settlement should have a "Settled" date and two incorporation dates, one for incorporation as a town and one for incorporation as a city. But (at least in California) cities seldom develop in this pattern. Best regards, —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We moved that article in the same minute, with me seconds behind you, so that it ended up pointing to itself with all the content deleted; but I have dug it up and straightened it out. I knew the form because I did the same thing to another Patriarch all by myself yesterday. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow-- strange. I haven't seen that before. I did a recheck of the several patriarchs I did before Timothy I -- all of them went through okay (fortunately). But, in the future, I need to remember to recheck those delete/moves, just in case. Thanks for letting me know. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cactus, I was creating a page for "Justin Jannati" and you seem to have deleted it. Justin Jannati is a notable gentleman who has helped at our university profoundly. He has published articles which can be cited, stood in tenure as Law Society president and much more. At one of the meetings, it was suggested that a page be created in recognition of his works. May I kindly ask how we would go about getting this published without it being removed.
Yours,
Colleen WilliamsonProfilecreators321 (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, Colleen Williamson. The biography article on Justin Jannati was deleted per Wikipedia's WP:A7 criteria because there was no credible assertion of significance. Please note that this in no way reflects on his work or the admiration of his fellow students -- it simply means that his accomplishments, as presented, do not meet any level of notability for an encyclopedic article. (Being the president of a university student organization or publishing a paper in a university law review are fairly commonplace. And, on their own, are of no particular significance.) It is a good idea to familiarize yourself with our guidelines at WP:NOTABILITY as well as Biographies of Living Persons. These provide a good overview of the kinds of things which might establish notability -- in particular, the necessary significant coverage of the individual in independent reliable sources. In addition, I suggest you read our policy concerning Conflict of Interest which strongly discourages individuals from writing about their friends, family or colleagues. If you wish, I suggest you use the WP:ARTICLEWIZARD to create new articles. It can help lead you through the process. But, in my opinion, an encyclopedic biography on this individual is premature. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear CactusWriter,
Thank you for deleting the user pages I had created in error. These were the result of something in Book Creator that I am stuck on. Would you mind if I forwarded to you the email which I had sent to the Wikipedia email address? Or should I just post on this talk page? Perhaps you could help me out.
Thanks,
Swamixyz (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Swamixyz. If you have a question, feel free to post it on my talk page. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello again CactusWriter, Thank you for your prompt response. I didn't want to dump a lot on your page, however, it will give you a better history. The 1st email may not be necessary since your people have since deleted the unwanted pages. I think it's a relatively simple problem. BTW, was I supposed to indent 1 or 2 spaces for my 1st response? Here is the email thread (most recent first of course):
Fw: Book Creator PLEASE, PLEASE HELP!!!! - continued - *UPDATE*
-OK, I put the delete code at the top of each page and thankfully your editors have now deleted all 6 of my 7 pages created in error.
-So now I’m prepared to begin the book again under just my User Name.
-However, I still do not understand what to type in the box labeled “Choose a storage location for your book” so that I may
save my book.
-My User Name is Swamixyz. Why does the Manage your book page reflect “User:Swamixyz/Books/”? What appended the sub-path/sub-
folder “/Books” to my User Name? Is that something I had added or is that how a book is properly categorized?
-Finally, all my previous attempts to Name and Subtitle the book failed, regardless of what I typed into “Choose a storage
location for your book”. That’s how I originally created 7 different User Pages.
Can you please just advise me a) what to type in the box “Choose a storage location for your book” and b) how to save your book
with a name?
I do not want to attempt to create another book until my main question (above) is answered. If for some reason you cannot respond
to this email, can you post the answers on my Talk Page?
Thanks again,
USER: Swamixyz
From:
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 9:17 PM
To: info-en@wikimedia.org
Subject: Fw: Book Creator PLEASE, PLEASE HELP!!!!
Can you please help me? I’m extremely frustrated trying to answer my questions:
How in the world do you get the “Manage Book” page to NAME your book?
I want to create 1 book under USER: Swamixyz. Instead I currently have 6 User pages created in error with all different versions
of the input I typed in the box under Save and Share. Exactly what am I supposed to type in that box in order to activate the
Save button?
I attempted to live chat. What the hell is a channel? I don’t recall creating a nickname beside my User name. So this attempt
failed!
The more I try to utilize all your online Help, the more confused I’m becoming. I am not a programmer but am quite computer
literate. How do I delete the 5 unwanted User pages? One help page says “type (had to remove code)" at the top of the page. At
the top of what page and where? Another help page says to "type (had to remove code)" again “at the top of the page” to have the
page deleted.
I currently have 6 articles collected under a nameless book (since I can’t figure out how to Save the name). Some User Pages
reflect –0- articles, some reflect 5 of the 6 total. I would like to delete all User Names except Swamixyz and be able to name 1
book under Username: Swamixyz. That’s it.
I love your site, but God forbid you run into a problem. You need to be a programmer to understand all these code entries
suggested in your Help.
I know you guys are busy but I would greatly appreciate your help please with the whole “Create a Book” feature. This is driving
me crazy and there is no tech support available apparently. I really wanted to live chat but couldn’t figure that out either since
there is no guidance provided. Thank you in advance for your help.
User: Swamixyz
From:
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 7:32 PM
To: info-en@wikimedia.org
Subject: Book Creator
Hello Wikipedia people,
I love your site and after using it quite a while I just discovered the “Create a Book” feature. I followed the steps exactly as
per your Help page. Thus far, I have added 6 articles to my book. However, I am getting very confused by certain
inconsistencies.
-Initially, when I clicked “Show my Book”, it only reflected 1 article.
-Eventually, somehow it reflected all 6 articles.
-Some of the articles which I had added were still open tabs in my browser. At one point, each page had the Book Creator dialog
box across the top. I just returned to some of these pages and the Book Creator box no longer appears on it. Why would that
occur? That prevents you from clicking “Show Book” or “Remove this page”.
-As previously stated, at one point my “Manage your Book” page reflected all 6 articles. At this moment, it reflects –0-
articles.?? My “User Page” does reflect all 6 articles.
-Each article added to my book that was left open reflects a different amount of articles next to “Show Book”. Some show 4 total
articles, some show 6 and one article (in my book) shows nothing because (as described above) the entire Book Creator box
disappeared!
-I have noticed if you open an article using a link from a “Search Results” page, it also will appear without the “Book Creator”.
-Finally, and the most annoying to me is; how in the world do you get the name and subtitle of your book to “Save”?!! Using the
“Manage your Book” page, the only way to get the “Save” button to activate is by typing something in the box under “Save and
share your book”. I’ve tried this a dozen times and the name and subtitle of my book never appear anywhere after I click
“Save”. Your Help page is not really clear on the saving part. It does not explain whether to type a typical path (such as
C:\Users\Bill\Documents) in the box under “Save and share your book” or what? When I first tried to Save using a typical path, it
did activate the Save button and I clicked it. Of course all this accomplished was adding the path to my User name on the “User
Page”. What are you expected to enter in the box under “Save and share your book”? I learned it does not save to the path of
your choice, so where are Books saved? I guess buried somewhere inside your browsers file? Eventually, I typed “Astronomy” in
that box which allowed me to click Save again, however the name and subtitle still do not appear.
Just FYI, during this whole process:
-I did not close or exit Wikipedia and then re-open it, or exit Firefox and re-open it.
-If the solution is “clear your cache”, does that wipe out the browsing history in Firefox? I like keeping the trail of sites
visited.
|
- Thank you very much for taking your time to read this. My apologies for its length. Hopefully, there is an easy fix to these things. Swamixyz (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Swamixyz, I realize that working these programs can be difficult when one first begins. So I sympathize with your frustration. But have you read all the help pages for the Book Creator program? I think the pages at Help:Books, Help:Books/for experts and Help:Books/FAQ can provide information for you. I don’t quite understand each of the problems you are having (I am only superficially familiar with the Book Creator function) — but if you are unable to find the answer in the Help pages, then I suggest you contact the WP:Help desk where editors can guide you. (By the way, indenting is done by typing one or more colons ":" at the very left margin, just before you write your text -- one semicolon for a single indentation, two semicolons for a double indentation, etc. This is described at WP:INDENT). Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article I created, samhainophobia (fear of Halloween), was deleted because it wasn't reliably sourced. So can you recreate this article before Halloween gets here with proper sources, like from books, journals and scholarly works, just like you did at koinoniphobia? PlanetStar 21:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but no I cannot. There seems to be only dictionary definitions for the word (thus it fails our WP:DICDEF policy). And no proper reliable sources which might meet the requirements described in the recent AFD. I'm afraid that that is one fear that will need be left outside on this Halloween. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear CactusWriter!
I've posted a draft of a page about Danish musician Nikolaj Grandjean.
First time it was declined because the sources (his official bio page on personal site) and IMDB (Filmography section) were "unreliable sources" and it wasn't a proof of his significance. I was asked to cite "reliable" ones such as music magazines, newspapers, record labels' etc.
So, I've updated that bio with other reliable sources. After second review it was deleted for the copyright infringement reasons (which particular part of info was infringing the removing administrator or techhelp weren't able to tell as draft was deleted already). I've checked for all the link to the sources and posted draft again.
You've reviewed it last week and also flagged it as infringement.
This time I was able to see that 1st time is was declined because text was taken from official bio page of a musician's site (even though I've provided the link for that bio in references, with numerous other more "reliable" sources in support; not to mention that I have blessing from the musician himself and this biography is "approved"; I also rewrote it to be more official, as the original is more of an essay), and 2nd time (when you reviewed it) - because it was the same text as on IMDB page bio (I am the person who posted that bio there, and it was two months later after I submitted draft to Wiki).
Could you please help me with this? What can I do to make it right? Should I cite the sources differently? I've read all possible guidelines and still don't understand why even though I've provided the reference, it is still deemed as infringement.
Thank you very much in advance!
Best, Kravitza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kravitza (talk • contribs) 15:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Kravitza. I'm sorry that you have been having difficulty creating an article and I appreciate that you are attempting to abide by policies -- but Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and they must be removed immediately. I rechecked the deleted article that you created and can confirm that the history section contained text which was copied exactly (word-for-word) from two published sources: [1], [2]. Entire sentences were copied from the official bio. (for example: he instantly began writing his own material, instead of learning how to play known songs. and During recordings with Luke on a mountainside in Brazil, Grandjean gets quite handy with the recording devices and with close friend, opera singer Mikkel Lomborg by his side, he decides to start recording his material himself as a proclaimed singer. It does not matter that the text is cited, it still is a violation. And changing a few words so that the text is slightly altered would still be plagiarism. It is not only the words that are copyrighted, but also the original author's presentation of ideas. One suggestion is to follow the instructions at WP:Donating Copyrighted Material which allows the original author to contact the Wikimedia Foundation by e-mail from the website and formally release their copyright for the text in question. However, we find that text from official websites is generally unusable on Wikipedia because it is written in such a way that it promotes, hypes or advertises the subject -- therefore, it usually fails our policies on promotional language and neutral point-of-view. The best advice is to always write the text in your own words. That is, read the sources but then put the sources away and, without looking at them, write the article in your own words telling only the facts. Do not embellish the facts nor add promotional language. Then add references from independent reliable sources for each of the statements which you have written. I hope this advice helps. Let me know if you have further questions. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CactusWriter, new editor Jilan raj ms recreated Sagar Das for the third time after been deleted twice for WP:A7 another editor opened this AfD/Sagar Das, in case you are interested and want to take action. He has a copy of the article in his userpage Jilan raj ms. Is there a template to notify him to stop recreating the article? Thank you. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Crystallizedcarbon. I moved their user page to a subpage and then left a brief explanatory note about this for the editor. I also commented at the AFD. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
why have you deleted the page?it was no attack page(the nonsense from the page comes from a vandalized version of List of The Land Before Time characters)please stop deleting it:I've written on it its no attack page--87.228.204.54 (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:87.228.204.54, please note that the page was tagged for speedy deletion -- although it was tagged as an attack page probably because of your introductory comments at the top, it should have been simply deleted as vandalism and inappropriate for an IP talk page. The Wikipedia guideline is that any Inappropriate content may be removed from any page in your user space, including your user talk page. This includes those pages which seem to condone vandalism as being 'humor' ...will generally be seen as having the same effect as condoning the behavior, and may also be removed. (See WP:UP#NOT) This is especially true for unregistered IP accounts such as yours. IP addresses might be or become shared -- such as yours which may have been previously assigned to a school account. As I am sure you can understand, it would be rude for new IP users to discover inappropriate material and vandalism already in place on their talk page. Therefore, it is a good policy to remove the storage of vandalism from IP address pages regardless of whether or not you currently find it funny. I would suggest that you register an account on Wikipedia which would allow you to create a subpage for collecting material. And remember to place the {{user page}} template on the subpage to prevent it from being picked up by search engines and mirror websites. In the case of the vandalism material on the IP:87.228.204.54 talk page, there is no reason for it to be displayed there since User:FunkMonk has created a subpage for it at User talk:FunkMonk/Amphitherium which you can access. If you have any further questions regarding this, please feel free to ask. Thanks. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Significant contributor to the internet and Fox Sports.
Had the most poignant piece on Ray Rice situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmartin17 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 November 2014
- Hi Dmartin17. The page Katie nolan was tagged for speedy deletion because it did not meet the Wikipedia criteria for a "credible assertion of significance" for a biography. This is typical for recent internet personalities and youtube bloggers -- especially if the sources presented are only youtube videos by the individual rather than reliable sources about the individual. Please note that biographies on Wikipedia need to be referenced to reliable independent sources which discuss the individual in significant detail (not simply mention them). This is especially true for biographies of living people -- which have much more stringent standards. I suggest you review those those blue-linked pages to get an understanding of what is required. It is also a good idea to use the Article Wizard when creating an article -- this will help you navigate the Wikipedia guidelines as well as receive help for experienced editors. In the meantime, I have recreated your article at Draft:Katie nolan for you to work on so that it meets encyclopedic standards. If you have questions, feel free to ask. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmartin17 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 21 November 2014
This film article was tagged and speedied as lacking content, yet its info box contained content that could have led to expansion and sourcing. Just letting you know. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Michael. Thanks for the courtesy notice. The article was actually deleted as a test page -- but you are correct that there was an infobox with information. It's always fine with me if you want to restore something like that. I've gone ahead and done it for you, added an intro sentence and tagged it for lack of refs. Cheers and have fun. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I'll find some more sources. Be well.
 Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for restoring my talk page(I thought of keping an archive of my history here because ill leave soon)but I have one question:could you undelete User:87.228.204.54 as well because if I restore the talk page,i don't have space from putting the retirement templates.thanks--87.228.204.54 (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no compelling reason to restore the page -- which was deleted as vandalism by another administrator. There is also nothing that currently prevents you from placing a template on the page. Please understand, though, that because the "user page" is actually an unregistered IP address, that page is only temporary and will likely change once that address has been assigned to a different user. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you just changed the block settings for Hayatgm to revoke talk page access and deleted their user page under CSD G5. While I support the original indefinite block, having had some interaction with the user, may I ask why you did that? The user did not, as far as I can tell, abuse talk page access, and the userpage was created before the user was blocked. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Richard Yin. Thanks for pointing out the time line for that user page creation. When I investigated the G5 tag that an editor had placed there, I did misread the page as having been created after the indefinite block because of the 11:35 time sig on the page (which would have been after the block) - and interpreted it as block evasion and puppet recruitment. However, you are correct -- the editing history shows it was created 5 hours before the block. I have restored the page and talk page access. Considering the almost year-long history of that user's problematic edits (especially copyvios) and their lack of response to any invitations to talk, I doubt there will be any improvement. Sometimes competence is definitely an issue. But, of course, there is always hope. If there is anything further you would like me to do, let me know. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: this, sorry about that--I should have looked more closely at the time stamps. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, Cyphoidbomb. I made the exact same mistake. (See my reply above to Richard Yin). The difference in time stamps and the editing history times still trips me up sometimes. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for information about the open source project GLyphy, and followed a search result that started with "GLyphy is an opensource project (licensed through Apache License 2.0) that implements a signed-distance-field (SDF) text renderer using OpenGL ES2 shading language." which was exactly what I was looking for. To my surprise you deleted the page under A7, despite the fact that the project is open source and not tied to any company or brand O_o ... can that page be undeleted again? It's a fairly significant bit of software to the font design world, and might require some text rewriting, but definitely not an article deletion. Thank you -- Pomax (I do not have a wikipedia account) 19:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.54.244 (talk)
- Pomax, the single sentence that you quote was the entirety of the article page when it was deleted. It asserted no significance for the topic. (Please note that simple existence of a computer program is not enough for inclusion -- its significance needs to be asserted, and established by independent sources.) The other paragraph in the article was removed because it was a copyright violation -- and thus cannot be undeleted. However, there is nothing which currently prevents an editor from recreating the article as long as it meets Wikipedia criteria for[[{WP:N]] by being the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If you wish to write the article, I suggest you use the WP:Article wizard which can help new editors navigate the Wikipedia requirements for encyclopedic articles. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
You deleted this template as deprecated - could you delete its doc subpage too? It is also fully superseded by Croatia Yearbook 2013 and is now obsolete too. GregorB (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Deleted as a WP:G7 request. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... find {{Danskefilm}}, and the three {{DNFc}}, {{DNFn}}, and {{DNFt}} useful. Best, -- Sam Sing! 08:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, those will make linking quite a bit easier. I appreciate your pointing them out.. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cactus Writer
Thanks for the editing you did recently on Aalborg Defence and Garrison Museum. Well done taken into consideration that you obtained most of your information from newspapers. However, this is also the problem. False information on the hangar has flourished during many years, and this was picked up from more newspapers in Denmark, maybe also to a degree supported by the museum.
However it is not true, that the hanger was taken down and transported from Holland to Denmark during the war. It may be true as a recent study says, that a blister halle was moved from Holland to Aalborg. But the hanger is a Junker Halle, which was a standard hangar used by the Germans during WW II.
For your in formation I established the museum in 2002 and has run it as manager since then and until end of 2013.
Orla Kops — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.21.139.143 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Orla Kops. Thanks. I appreciate your explanation. I had an idea that there might be a problem due to your insistent removal of information, but because you failed to include an edit summary or communicate your intention there was no way for us to know. Removing sourced text without any explanation is often seen as vandalism. Therefore, it is best practice when editing Wikipedia to always use the edit summary or the article talk page to explain your actions. Please note that Wikipedia articles can only use information which is verified by independent reliable sources -- that is, we follow a policy of verifiability, not original research. You may be correct about the origin of the hangar -- however, without an actual reliable published source, we cannot use that information. (All editors on the internet are essentially anonymous -- anyone can claim to be anyone -- and therefore we do not, nor cannot, use any editor's word as "truth." As I am sure you can understand.) I am willing to forego inclusion of the Holland detail for the moment. I don't consider it a particularly essential point. But if you know of published sources which can be used to explain the history or expand the article, please add them. Any additions you make must be referenced by reliable sources. Good luck with your editing. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We now have a complete set of (still quite stub'ish) list articles on Robert Awards (quick view: {{Robert Awards chron}}). I've used {{Ill}} as far as I had the time, so if you're sitting around not knowing what your next ten new articles should be  there are dozens of redlinked film/actor/director subjects that needs translation. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for helping to fill in so many of those Danish film redlinks. It's been a while since Erik, Blofeld, Lugnuts, a few others and I started the Nordic cinema task force back in September 2008 -- so it's wonderful to see the article work keep expanding. I don't really have as much time as I did back then -- when Piil was on always on my desk and DFI was a quick link away. Nor any shortage of an article backlog. (The administration stuff has taken its time drain over the recent several years.) But I'll keep your "subtle suggestion" in mind. Thanks again for the good work. If you have questions about anything at all, let me know. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hey this is for Chitra Group of Institutions page which you recently deleted this page belongs to my company chitra group. all the content which was used here was under me as I owe that website http://chitragroup.co.in/ I would like to request you that you should undo deletion of my page please, I make shure that the content on that page was permitted by me. being the ceo of the Chitra Group.
you can check the admins of our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/chitra.group1. if you require some editing on this page I will surley do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarsachan12 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello. The bottom of the page at http://www.chitragroup.co.in states "All Rights Reserved © Chitragroup.co.ins”, and the bottom of every Facebook page states "Facebook © 2015”. Wikipedia can only use text which is released for all public domain use — usually by a creative commons compatible license. And it does not accept text which has been copied from any copyrighted site without direct written permission to the Wikimedia Foundation offices. If you wish the material to be undeleted, you will need to follow the instructions about this at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials . However, please also understand that even if text is granted permission for copying, it still may be inappropriate for Wikipedia and may require editing or removal. For example, it will still need to meet the criteria for notability, verifiability through independent sources and non-promotion among other things. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- if you firstly undelete the page I will quickly change the details as per required — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarsachan12 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrators are not permitted to restore copyvios -- restoring a copyright violation would be a violation in itself. And it is unnecessary because the pages from which the information were copied are freely available for referral. — CactusWriter (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
--Oralofori (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Hello there, I hope you're doing fine. Kindly take a look at this article that has the tag of copyvio. Changes have been made to it and I need your help with removing that tag. Do let me know what you think of it so far and thanks: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Mensah&action=edit&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro[reply]
|
